Back to Dental India Homepage
A discussion in "periotherapist group"
As a practicing hygienist for over 30 years who has tried every treatment
to help my perio pts, I now have a tool that will let me do just that.
Patients treated with my DEKA CO2 Ultraspeed after SRP have decreased or
no bleeding sites, decreased pocket depths and decreased colonized and motile
bacteria....nothing else will do this with predictable results. SRPs alone may
result in decreased (although usually minimal) pocket depths and temporarily
decreased bleeding sites, it does not reduce colonized bacteria for longer
than 7 -10 days. Even patients with non-existent home care look better at
recall after being treated with this laser. I also know that the level of
laser (light) energy that I am using is not hurting my patients in
any way....can you say that about Arestin??? or about scaling root surfaces
so smooth that fibers can not reattach???
So that said, Im on board. I dont need to wait 5-10+ years for the research
to prove that my results are accurate and reduceable and predictable....
my patients need to be healthier now. Perio disease is not a local infection
and the associated bacteria (treponema denticola) course through the body
attaching in other sites (the heart, the brain). As someone earlier stated,
education of patients is a must. Patients won't value what they dont understand.
In regard to return on investment, there is no other tool that you can bring
into a dental office and create the same return on investment. Procedures
done with this laser have no associated lab bill or component parts...the
revenue goes right to the bottom line. I am using the laser to treat perio,
but it is a surgical laser and my doctor performs many procedures in our
office that would have been referred out or (more likely) not done....who
wants soft tissue surgical procedures done with a blade when they can be
done bloodlessly, with no sutures and minimal if any post op pain...
its a no brainer.
You mentioned that you talked with some hygienists using a diode and their
results were spotty... talk with some hygienists using the DEKA CO2 Ultraspeed
(the new generation of CO2 lasers) and see what they have to say.
Again I suggest that you attend a Standard Proficiency Course....its a great
way to get info from one of the country's leading experts in all things
laser dentistry. Lasers in dentistry are here to stay....learn all you can
from those at the top of the field! - Laurie King, RDH MS 8th Sep 2008
Journal of Periodontology
2006, Vol. 77, No. 4, Pages 545-564
Lasers in Periodontics: A Review of the Literature
Charles M. Cobb
Background: Despite the large number of publications, there
is still controversy among clinicians regarding the application of dental lasers
to the treatment of chronic periodontitis. The purpose of this review is to
analyze the peer-reviewed research literature to determine the state of the
science concerning the application of lasers to common oral soft tissue problems,
root surface detoxification, and the treatment of chronic periodontitis.
Methods: A comprehensive computer-based search combined the
following databases into one search: Medline, Current Contents, and the Cumulated
Index of Nursing and Allied Health. This search also used key words. In addition,
hand searches were done for several journals not cataloged in the databases,
and the reference lists from published articles were checked. All articles were
considered individually to eliminate non-peer-reviewed articles, those dealing
with commercial laser technology, and those considered by the author
to be purely opinion articles, leaving 278 possible articles.
Results: There is a considerable conflict in results for both
laboratory studies and clinical trials, even when using the same laser wavelength.
A meaningful comparison between various clinical studies or between laser and
conventional therapy is difficult at best and likely impossible at the present.
Reasons for this dilemma are several, such as different laser wavelengths; wide
variations in laser parameters; insufficient reporting of parameters that, in
turn, does not allow calculation of energy density; differences in experimental
design, lack of proper controls, and differences in severity of disease and
treatment protocols; and measurement of different clinical endpoints.
Conclusions: Based on this review of the literature, there
is a great need to develop an evidence-based approach to the use of lasers for
the treatment of chronic periodontitis. Simply put, there is insufficient evidence
to suggest that any specific wavelength of laser is superior to the traditional
modalities of therapy. Current
evidence does suggest that use of the Nd:YAG or Er:YAG wavelengths for treatment
of chronic periodontitis may be equivalent to scaling and root planing (SRP)
with respect to reduction in probing depth and subgingival bacterial populations.
However, if gain in clinical attachment level is considered the gold standard
for non-surgical periodontal therapy, then the evidence supporting laser-mediated
periodontal treatment over traditional therapy is minimal at best. Lastly, there
is limited evidence suggesting that lasers used in an adjunctive capacity to
SRP may provide some additional benefit.